2 posts tagged “essay”

There were a lot of potential titles I could use to sum up this post, but I felt "MacWorld twist" was the best, I'll tell you why.
The blogosphere is going pretty nuts after the Stevenote, about how good the iPhone is, and the AppleTV etc etc. I watched the keynote, and I'm seriously impressed. Although Steve straight out said "We aren't discussing Macs, and we aren't discussing iLife 07", his major two announcements were enough to hold the audience after this let down.  But I come to you with a different kind of post about the MacWorld announcements, and this is where the twist is. It's not a report on the news, but instead an opinion of some of the people discussing the news.

One of the things that have been widely discussed is that the iPhone is 2G, not 3G. At first, I thought "WTF does that mean" and assumed it had something to do with "generations" of mobile phones, but I was bewildered as to how you would define a generation of a mobile phone (and still are). For all the praise that the iPhone has gotten since it's announcement, and for all the people that have been saying "Fuck Verizon, I'm moving to Cingular, iPhone baby wooo!" there's been more people saying "Oh, well, it's not 3G, I just won't get it, because it's clearly not awesome".

So I did a bit of research (Wikipedia) to find out about 3G and 2G. I use a mobile phone to call people and SMS, and also to store my passwords (piece of paper hidden behind the battery, pure genius), so I'm by no means an expert when it comes to cell phone technology.
3G

The services associated with 3G provide the ability to transfer simultaneously both voice data (a telephone call) and non-voice data (such as downloading information, exchanging email, and instant messaging).

Emphasis mine. 3G allows you to do "both a telephone call and download information, exchange email, and IM".
So what does this mean? It means that while talking, you can download things off the Internet, exchange email and IM people, while you're talking. If this is a precursor to you buying a phone, do the world a favour and wrap a plastic bag around your head, very tightly, don't let go, just hang in there.
I have a gripe with this, because despite my age of youth, I've been known to be a bit "old fashioned", which, let's face it, means "ethical". I think that if you're talking to someone, have the courtesy to devote a measly minute of your attention to them, and nothing else. If the person on the phone is really cutting into your time when you're doing something important, tell them you have to go, and cut them off. But if somebody has called you, and you aren't doing anything life-defining, give them your full attention. If you're downloading and IM'ing while you're on the phone in a conversation, you're not doing that, you're just being an ass. You're the worst kind of yuppie there is.
How convenient could it possibly be for you to be cruising the Internet while you're talking to someone anyway? You may have loudspeaker on, but then the recipient of your yuppie blather is going to be hearing "tap tap tap" interfering with your speech. Not only is that rude, it's just stupid. Make a decision, Internet or phone. You don't need both.

The digg comments section has long been known as a source of stupidity. In most of the iPhone threads after the Stevenote, many people stated they wouldn't be getting the iPhone because it was only 2G. These are the kind of yuppie scum I'm talking about. I bet they were commenting on digg while chatting with their Grandma and downloading snoop dogg in MIDI. Several of these comments took place in a thread linking to this story from Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/1/10/6559
That article has some valid points. It has a high price, it doesn't sync with iTunes using Wifi, and it uses the Cingular service (as an Australian, I don't know how Cingular is, but I have heard a lot of people saying it doesn't have great coverage in their area in the US). However, their paragraph on how the iPhone isn't going to be the killer app (how can hardware be a killer "app"?) is just so ambiguous as to why it's even a reason. It uses a lot of non-meaning words, which carry no weight, and little significance. I've never really paid much attention to the journos on Ars Technica, but it seems to me that the writer of this article, Mary E. Tyler, is a poor writer. In the opening paragraph, she also states that she was requested to give an opinion on the iPhone, and also says "What's the first thing we do but find the faults with it?". I would request in future that Mary doesn't lump us in as a way to justify her shitty writing.

3G really isn't a whole big deal for most consumers. Maybe if you use trendy buzzwords daily to make yourself seem intelligent with a wide vocabulary (if it's not in the Oxford, it isn't really a word, thus can't be part of a vocabulary, luser). Higher numbers doesn't always equate to better. Stop being an ass, devote your attention to the person who called you.

By the way, Merlin was right, Quicksilver is the Mac app.

del.icio.us - flickr - digg

Technology has brought the world much happiness. Not only has it been beneficial in areas of increased entertainment, but it's also accelerated the world in terms of finding cures for diseases, and discovering the mysteries of our existence. Modern technology has improved all aspects of our life. Look around you. Things you take for granted were unheard of a hundred years ago (or even as recently as 20 years ago. A portable phone smaller than your palm? As if that could happen!).
Technology has also brought much sadness. As with all things, there is a good and a bad side to modern technology. Advanced computer systems have been implemented to create terrible weapons of destructibe power. A person with the resources and the appropriate technology available today can send a missile down your chimney, into your bed room, and blow apart a chunk of your neighbourhood.

A question often asked by ancient philosophers throughout time is "How much knowledge is too much" (paraphrased).
This means "When will we reach a stage where we know too much, or have advanced too far in technology, for our own good".
Consider this. Most things are available over the Internet. Need some groceries? Forget getting off your chair, just sign up for a delivery service, offered by most major grocery outlets. It's coming up to the end of the month. Better run down to the post office and pay your bills, otherwise you'll be out of gas and electricity (water isn't an issue, all you really need are instant coffee satchels and milk). Hold on there, Speedy McFitness! Why leave the house when with a few clicks, you can just pay the bills from the safety of your personal confuser? Your favourite band just release a new album, but you can't be bothered going down to your favourite music store? Perish the thought, that's why they invented iTunes (or if you're really naughty, BitTorrent).
Currently, there are some things that you can't rely on the Internet for. For example, how can you pay bills online if you haven't talked to the banker at the bank with your details? Things like these are at least keeping the number of laziness-induced cardiac arrests down, however sooner or later, everything will be automated.
I don't say that loosely either. Everything is being converted to automation. An ATM is a classic example as well. No need to speak to a real person when you can just insert a card, hit some buttons, then walk away.
This automation of services is leading towards two major issues for the future of the human race.
- Decrease in social skills
- Increase in obesity, dependence on technology, and asshole attitudes.

Concern for social skills
http://studentsopinion.blogspot.com/2006/04/my-sunday.html

Earlier this year, in April, I wrote about a subject that at the time, I called "electronic seclusion".
"On the drive up to the show, as soon as we got in the car everybody whipped out their phones and iPods and started listening to music etc. Luckily I hadn't brought any electronic distractions, which meant I was able to think for a while."
Electronic seclusion is the term I have for people being secluded from social interaction by technological barriers. And by barriers, I don't mean constraints in technological inadequacies, but instead technology acting as a barrier to communication in person. The example I used there was something similar to being able to do everything via a Skype-like universally standard program. Order groceries, do the banking, pay bills, etc. all without leaving your own home. You'd never need to see a real person ever again, let alone meet them face-to-face.
Of course, with the current state of affairs, kids spending too much time away from face-to-face communication start to lack in that area of speech. Before I go on, I'd like to say that I'm an advocate of playing online games, and being on the Internet all the time, is very social (contrary to the majority of parental views). However I know that after spending 18 hour days on World of Warcraft for a couple weeks, you start to make mistakes when writing and when speaking to someone's face. You also begin to develop tendencies to avoid looking at someone when speaking to them.
I have a theory about this. When speaking to some via text, it's harder to be manipulated or persuaded by their words (fact, not speculation. Now comes the speculation). I believe that this is why people begin to avoid eye-contact, because they know that not seeing the person's face means that they can develop an independent frame of mind easier.
So if technology is already beginning to create speech-retarded generations, will technology of the future amplify this effect? It would be logical to think so. However, perhaps we will find a currently unthinkable solution to this. A solution so far out of the box, it has it's own box. A swanky pad in a metropolitan area, bay views. I digress.

Fat jerk nerds
What's the stereotype for nerds (viewed from the eyes of the mass consumer population and the popular media)?
It's this: http://i.somethingawful.com/404/egad.jpg
How are we to improve our image to the thin, slightly lanky-yet-geek-trendy that better represents our slexy selves? It's going to be very difficult to. This is because the media is very powerful, and with the flawless facts that are stereotypes (/sarcasm), they have the power to persuade the masses.
How did these stereotypes evolve? Witness accounts of people who have seen the terrors of obesity brought on by overuse of technology, and underuse of THEIR LEGS. These poor fat people just loved their internets too much to go outside and feed the dog, so they spent their time inside, eating the year's supply of ramen that they'd bought the previous week (Mmmm... ramen). Why? It was simply too easy NOT to go outside. Through natural progression, I've determined that the example used above will, in the future of modern technology, look somewhat similar to this:
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4551/mcdonaldstp2.jpg It was so horrible, Imageshack blocked it.
As you can see, not a pretty sight.
Also, fat nerds may take to eating their roommates (that is, if anybody was kind enough to stay with them even after their stench obliterated local wildlife).
Gross obesity isn't the only issue though. Only now are we beginning to see the effects of long term sessions on the computer, and the effects of obesity. However a factor on the Internet we've been familiar with since the dawn of the Internet era is the genre of morons who I called the "assonymoholes". This is an intelligent collaboration of the words "asshole" and "anonymous". I direct you to Exhibit Apple:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040319h.jpg
The modern prophet and philosopher, Jonathon Gabriel, has diagnosed a problem that has long been present on the Internet, and that is the problem of the so-called "assonymoholes". In case you didn't understand Gabe's concise math (even I had trouble comprehending it's advanced formula at first), then I'll explain it for you. Hey, it's okay, don't be embarassed.
The Internet provides a free medium (eg: easy to access for everybody). This medium allows people to share information and such with each other. However, sometimes the generousity of Internos, the interweb God, is exploited. How is it exploited? By people who want to voice their opinion, using mediums built within a medium, by using a blog. However, these evil generousity-exploiting fools' blogs are full of hatred, and stupidity. An excerpt from a certain blog I came across.
"lolz so hi agin,i hav anutha sumthin to tell u abt my day so today i went 2 da park n wit sum friends n wat we did is we saw these stupid kidz hu luked liek dey new wat dey wer talkin abt. dey were talkin abt how da internet is used 4 sharing of informashin n shudnt be used by da stupid ppl n they menchund ppl dat spell liek me. neway i tuk my ignorant ass ova to der grupe n i said to dem "hey dats not nice n the internet is for everybody" n then dey threw rocks at my face 4 bein a dopy bitch".
You can't make this stuff up. Luckily, this quote coincides with my point. Actually, one of the rock-throwers may have been me, and this stupid twat of a girl was another lurker at this park (it's right near a milk bar). To continue with my explanation, the Internet gives people anonymity. This power of being unknown gives people the false belief that by saying things on the Internet that they wouldn't be prepared to say in face-to-face conversation, there will be no consequences. I say falsely believe, because if you piss of the wrong group of people, they will make you wish you never heard the term "MySpace".
Therefore, with this shallow power, they feel the need to talk like an educated and opinionated person, and give their views on important matters that they, in reality, know nothing about, and would not be prepared to speak about face-to-face, because of their own insecurities (which could possibly stem from the electronic seclusion theory above).

I used to be one of these assonymoholes. I plagued the boards with my poor grammer and awful spelling, and just flamed the shit out of some people. Then, after watching several episodes of Seinfeld and Scrubs, I realised how pointless it was to be a little shit who appeared as little more than an uneducated moron, so I began to spell properly, checked my punctuation, remade my attitude to a cynical/sarcastic yet witty and opinionated writer. I've seen it happening a lot. I think that the kids growing up today are realising more and more that being a stupid prick on the Internet doesn't translate to any respect or power in real life, so why not try and appear more intelligent? I think you'll find that displaying that quality on the internet will translate into respect in real life (especially because people will know that you're willing to call it like it is, and speak your mind, making you a trustworthy person).

To summarise, technology is beginning to reach heights never thought possible. We're achieving things that even Leonardo Da Vinci hadn't dreamt of. First we need to ask ourselves "What is the ultimate goal of humanity and the human race?". If it is to reach a situation via the use of our own creation to achieve a lifestyle free from pain, suffering, sadness, and create a eutopia, like a simulated Eden, then technology may not provide that answer. However if the answer is to stagnate human growth by removing the need for exercise and fundamental care for our bodies and minds, then we're heading in the right direction.

How much knowledge is too much knowledge?

Suggested listening: http://www.twit.tv/sn69
On this, Steve Gibson basically mentions some similar points to do with anonymity and the effect it has on free speech.